Payer - Good Metaphor, Bad

¶ … Payer - Good Metaphor, Bad Politics

I am a believer of welfare state more than the concept of free market. Capitalism is good since it offers opportunities for growth and achievements and also it provides chances to live equitable lives. However, the self-responsibility of things is something often misused in capitalistic economies. Even in most developed countries like America, the government has started to directly and indirectly take its hands of the medical care of people. Insurance for example is becoming a sole personal burden gradually. I feel that the single payer concept is "panic in disguise."

The author's thesis is that single payer is only a good metaphor but politically it is a bad policy. The objectives of a technocrat are way different than political objectives that are in public interest majorly. While many would blame the insurance system that is trying to put the burden on the individual, government is equally responsible for not making use of its policy making powers (What is Single Payer? 2013). The author suggests that there is no sense in having single source of financing the health insurance services. Rather the concept of single payer is ambiguous still there are always more than one parties involved in financing. The author makes sense by relating the concept of single payer to free market. He says that both are the reverse of each other. Even in free markets, not everybody is paying for himself or herself. In families, parents pay for their children and often for the old parents too. The house wife's insurance is paid by her husband etc. The author supported his argument by giving the example of gifts. These gifts are not paid for by the one who receives the gift. Hence, there is no such economy as single-payer. The idea can seem smart yet delusional.

Author presented satisfactory thesis and logic to back his argument. The author takes into account the possible counter agreement against his thesis. He says that it can be suggested that everybody spends in a pool from where the funds are used to pay for everybody. Yet, it should not be forgotten that not everybody pays equally. The author challenges the idea of single payer through paying in a pool because the pool does not contain all the same illnesses. If everybody was paying equally in the pool and getting same insurance, then the disease caught by everyone should be same too. However, people have different level of risks and ailments. Thus distributive justice becomes questionable. I agree with the author regarding universal access concept too. He says that those who negate cream-skimming in health insurance are wrong. The claims of offering universal access to health insurance services have no proofs and reality basis.

Stone (2009) has accused the bog insurance companies of United States. He says that these companies are unable to offer standard insurance programs rather they somehow prevent the standard practices for their profit goals' achievement. He says that calling of the private insurance program totally is not possible hence indirect efforts like single-payer are being used. He says that while universal health insurance is the goal, there are many obstacles in the way. The roles assigned to the middle men complicate the job. The aptient cannot have required and relevant medical tests without getting approval from the middle man. This does not only decrease the efficiency of process by taking more time but also it increases the cost by giving middle man his share.

The author gave convincing yet inadequate evidence on how the single payer can be the money saver. Since the single payer is not availing services from others, there is no competition and hence low efficiency. The patient is not full aware of how to spned money on medical perspectives hence the lack of guidence can cost more. The author did not fully tell which cost areas are more challenging with regard to decision making i.e. administrative or medical and scientific. The decsionon making and competition should not be handed over to the Americans since it is not everybody's capacity to make medical decisions without sufficient guidence from the doctors.

The author says that a concept that single-paper idea misses is the social health insurance and sharing the insurance costs. Stone (2009) says that it is vital to take into account and consider the benefits of social insurance.